[ZODB-Dev] savepoint bug

[Edward Moy]

With the recent message about possibly depreciating versions in favor 
of savepoints, I hope that will raise the priority of savepoints.  As 
for my use of ZODB, if it works out, it will go into an open-source 
project that would ship on the next release of Mac OS X (or 
thereafter), and hopefully be adopted by other platforms as well.  ZODB 
would have millions of new users needing savepoint support.

Another wish-list feature would be the ability to have multiple "views" 
of the same database.  It would be incredibly useful to me if each view 
could be modified separately, and each rolled back with savepoints, 
even if no view could be committed.  Like solving a traveling salesman 
problem, I'd like to keep separate "solutions" (different changes to 
the database) and be able to try each one as I step through, looking 
for the best solution.  Since I am keeping a record of each of the 
steps for each solution, and may present several solutions to the user 
to select from, I can always toss out the views and do a normal 
change/commit process.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Moy
Apple

On Jul 15, 2004, at 11:52 AM, Tim Peters wrote:

> [Edward Moy]
>>> So I retrieved ZODB/branches/tim-transactions and see "savepoint" in 
>>> the
>>> code, but (still as a ZODB beginner) can't figure out how to call it.
>>> Given a file-based persistent database, can you give me a few lines 
>>> on
>>> how to use the savepoints?
>
> [Jim Fulton]
>> I don't think this code is close to working.  Tim and I got a start 
>> but
>> then had to work on other things.
>
> Regret to confirm that Jim is correct.  What's on the branch is a 
> first cut
> at defining the new *interfaces*, and a toy implementation of these
> interfaces in a test file, intended to clarify subtleties and iron out
> problems before ZODB proper is changed.  There are no changes in "the 
> real"
> (non-test-suite) ZODB code yet, except for the new interfaces.
>
> Work on that branch has lower priority than most "other things" that 
> come
> up.
>
>